When I Changed My Mind:
The Very Varying Elect in the Remaining Days
[Written Wednesday evening with links and updates added since.]

I hope to write a story chapter this weekend, but at the moment I'm sitting in my living room tweaking some thoughts from Monday and Tuesday night.

Whether Obama is at a podium or just walking through a neighborhood greeting gushing fans, his self confidence cannot be contained. He seems to have hit his stride. In fact, when he's feeling especially cool, the stride becomes a strut. [Photo taken same day as "Joe the Plumber."]

Three hours until the debate. I'm not expecting a game changer--none of the debates have been game changers--but since this whole election season has been couched in CHANGE, in this pause before the last debate, I'll explain when one voter changed his mind.

***************

The first time I saw him was the week before Labor Day of 2004. I remember the moment because the television I was watching was in the guest room of a camp where our high school had gone for its annual retreat. The Democratic Convention’s keynote address was well underway when I clicked the remote. The screen flickered on, and there he was. Who was this guy? I’d never seen him before, but I liked what I was hearing and was surprised, to be honest, that the words were coming from a Democrat. There was talk of patriotism; family values; Biblical phraseology; and even the promise to always send enough troops to win a war. Such talk was not coming from their candidate, John Kerry. This must be how Dems felt when they watched the televised political debut of Ronald Reagan in 1964.

My wife Julie stepped into the room, and I said, “Listen to this guy. He’s great." And with little thought, I added, "Now here is a Democrat who's going to be President someday. Remember this moment. Someday he'll be our first black President.” It was a sheer gut-level prediction based solely on his ability to win me, a Republican, with woven thoughts that struck a chord. For most of my career, I had taught speech at both the college and high school level. I had studied every major oration in American history and had memorized major passages from many of them. I knew a good speech when I heard it--in fact, portions of historic passages were in the speech I was hearing--but this was not only an exceptional speech, it was an exceptional speaker. The cadence, the tone, the winning smile rang true with clear eyes set on a lofty mark.

"Who is he?" Julie asked.
"I don't know. I just turned it on, and there he was, but sit here and listen with me. The signs say Obama."

She sat with me at the end of the bed (there was no chair in the room) and listened through the end of the speech. Take a moment to listen to that link; imagine us listening; and you'll know why she asked again, "Who is he?"

When we finally heard his first and last name spoken, even the commentators were not sure how to pronounce it, but it struck no more prejudice in us than did the fact that he was African-American. This man and his speech seemed to transcend race, and for a moment I could imagine a world where thinking people were equally willing to look beyond the surface to the content of our national heart.

Obama easily won his Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate, but after the election season, I watched less news, and about a year passed before I heard the name again. Still the media was mispronouncing it. Even Ted Kennedy got mixed up and called him Osama Bin Laden. CNN did the same. They both felt bad. I used to get his two names switched. Was he Obama Burack or Burack Obama? Eventually we learned his middle name was Hussein, Ouch! As names go that's as big a handicap as "Adolf." But I didn't hold it against him and kept watching.

I remembered his speech. I remembered what I had told my wife about his future prospects, and though I never dreamt he would make his move for the White House before completing half of his first term as a junior senator, he was convinced this was his "moment in time" to rise up and spur us on to CHANGE. I knew almost nothing about him, but I was listening.

If you've been reading at POI for a while, you may remember that back in February and March, I had begun a series called "Words Fitly Spoken." In those posts I was looking at the primary season through the pillars of Greek Rhetoric: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (personal appeal, emotional appeal, and logical appeal). My partiality to Obama as a communicator is obvious in this post; and this one on Ethos, and this post that includes his entire speech on race.

The news story in the screen below aired last year when Obama was far behind Hillary in the polls. When you hear Obama's criticism of "the religious right," you may wrongly conclude it was this moment when my opinion began to change. [Click "REFRESH" to stop video clips.]

.

In the above clip Obama said, “Somewhere along the way, faith ... started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hi-jacked [by] the Christian right who have been all to eager to exploit what divides us..." it did not offend me. Like the "red-sate, blue-state" line of his 2004 speech, I looked for the truth in it. My Christian Right views had not changed, but I agreed: there was sometimes a tone set by "the right" that did not serve our purposes in a Christ-like way.

So when did I change my mind? Well, you can practically see the moment in the archives. It was soon after Obama's "right words" had a head-on collision with the Wright words.

On the weekend when I was writing the next post in the "Words Fitly Spoken" series on Pathos (which deals with a speaker's ability to use, control, and elicit emotion) several video clips of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright hit the web and the airwaves. At first I gave the man the benefit of the doubt as is indicated in this post about Pathos, but as you can see in that post, I was suddenly struck by a sense of betrayal.

How could Obama have said without blinking that “Faith got hi-jacked [by] the Christian Right who have been all to eager to exploit what divides us..." while sitting under this man's tutelage for 20 years? It would be six weeks before Obama would separate from the man he considered his spiritual leader for 20 years, the man who coined Obama's phrase "The Audacity of Hope," the man he greatly admired who was "like an uncle to him." the man who introduced him to "Black Liberation Theology/Christianity" explained in the second half of this video. The more I heard Wright's harsh racially-charged rhetoric the more phony Obama's words about unifying became.

It took a few weeks to settle in with me, but Obama's words did not match his record. This was blatant hypocracy [a word I made up meaning the hypocrisy typical in fallen man's democracy]. Obama's charge against the "Christian right" was a case of the pot calling the kettle white.

Worse yet, Obama then did two things that we've now seen are a pattern with him. First, was denial. He masked reality by claiming "he didn't know the person was like that." Second, he turned the tables on those who dare have concerns. The problem was not his past alliances but rather the prejudices of people wanting to know more about them. It was then I stopped listening to his eloquence and began examining his character and the truthfulness of what he says about his past and his plans for the future.

When a candidate is so young and his political career so new, it's important to look at each rung of the ladder he's climbed so quickly and to know what wall that ladder is leaning on, and who's holding it at the base. In a televised interview, Rev. Wright explained that in order to understand his preaching you must understand "liberation theology" (not to be confused with Cone's "Black Liberation Theology")An honest look at the major influences on Obama's life and the people who helped him rise to power leaves little doubt as to why Obama is the most left-leaning man in the Senate. I dare say he is not only far left, but some of the ideas he has launched are set on a socialistic trajectory. Socialism is not a pejorative term, many people in Europe, Chicago academia, and Obama's recently erased circles prefer socialism to Capitalism, but let's call it what it is as we discuss these matters in the remaining days.

Be warned however: if you question the political bent of Obama and his mentors, and if you speak out, you may be called a closet racist. The post before this triggered an interesting discussion. If you had your TV on at all last weekend and this week, you heard that ugly charge coming from different voices as if on cue. It's a tactic not untried but untrue. [See, I told you so. This article came out six days later. Review the definition of socialism and see if "share the wealth" is not more accurate than "code for black." How do we discuss anything intelligently when the liberals boil every difference of opinion down to race?]

It's a terrible thing it is to be called a racist simply because you disagree with someone whose skin is a slightly different shade. And what proof is offered by these accusers of "racism"? One or two whackos in the bleachers or the fact that some people "Booo" at the thought of a liberal who continues to minimize his alliances with questionable people or the fact that they don't like the socialistic direction he may map out for this country. I don't like booing myself, but I'll concede that in most cases it’s usually not hatred; it's home crowd feedback.

You want to see hatred? Just a month ago Manhattan congressman Charlie Rangel (charged with not paying over $10,000 in back taxes just last month) called Palin “disabled” and his clarification clearly indicates he meant “mentally retarded.” With leadership like that in Manhattan, it's no wonder that these Obama supporters in Manhattan behave so rudely:



Here's another report of vicious Obama supporters in NYC. Hatred is hatred, Folks. It's a visceral reminder of man's fallen nature, but "racism" is a unique kind of hatred; it's both a sin and a weapon that cuts both ways, making it hard to tell whether the accused or the accuser is most guilty of its guile.

When politicians accuse others of "racism" it's supposed to shut them up or help explain sinister outcomes or defeat caused by other factors. But since the past week has focused on countless false charges of racism thrown by the media and Democrats alike at anyone not on Obama's bandwagon, let's set the record straight and say there has been plenty of hatred shown by Obama supporters. Some might even call it rage. [Check out that last link.]
Seen enough? For the sake of the remaining days can we all agree that hatred must be called out, whether it's leveled against Obama or McCain or Palin or even the scoundrels in congress. Hatred in the end, clouds the good judgment needed when we step into the voting booth or listen to the ideas behind all the smooth talk of politicians.

Speaking of smooth talk. It's time for the debate....

Part II: Written after the debate.

Well, no major gaffs either way. McCain was McCain and Obama was Obama. McCain set up a few good jabs but didn't follow through with the punch. I'm not sure why. If he is hoping the media will see the "opening," do some research, and deliver a coup de grâce, he should know better. For instance, McCain raised Obama's broken promise to play by the same public funding rules both had agree to. As soon a Obama became a money-magnet super star, he decided to break his promise, resulting in mountains of cash to spend four times the amount McCain is on advertising. John set up the punch, but Obama shifted to "negativity," verbally deflecting the more damaging blow of his broken promise.
.
When it comes to words, Obama wins, but I spent six months impressed with his words and no longer take his currency at face value; I examine instead the ideas behind them; and that's why I have no choice but to stick with McCain/Palin. Sure, I wish they were as articulate in expressing what should never change about this great country, as Obama has been in selling "change" of the common sense that made it great. But I'll take a track record I can trust over words that I can't. (e.g. Listen again to his 2004 speech. He talked "hawkish" about sending in the number of troops it takes to win the war, then voted against the surge and acted surprised when it worked.")

Some say the winner of the debate was Joe the Plumber, a man who was out throwing the football with his son last Sunday when Obama happened to walk down his street. Click screen below to see how that exchange began and ended. [Sorry about the graphics and unrelated footage added by the Youtube user.]


Poor Joe the Plumber. He doesn't know what he's in for. As he endures his "fifteen minutes of fame" if what he says hurts Obama in any way, the press and Dems will eat him alive. He'll be sorry he ever dared ask such a common sense question.

Like Joe the Plumber, I am one of the vast middle class Obama promises to help when he “spreads the wealth,” but it goes against how I was raised. I don't feel entitled to someone else's wealth. Who's going to build all the businesses and shops and oil rigs and car plants and windmills everyone is talking about if not "those making over $250,000 a year." I say let them keep their hard-earned money and pay a fair rate of tax; let them invest in America's future. I'll earn my own way and live life according to my own means and dreams. Here is the first clip about Joe Plumber from the debate. Here is the second time he came up.

Joe the Plumber was on several radio and TV shows Thursday. He's a real guy, un-coached, un-vetted, unsolicited; he asked only a hypothetical question, but they will find a way to dig up dirt, talk to co-workers, see if he’s done anything wrong or said anything politically incorrect, etc. Anything to discredit him within 24 hours. I don't know this man, but watch with me as Joe the Plumber gets smeared into oblivion before the weekend. It's already starting.

Added early Friday morning: I was hoping I'd be wrong, but here's one of many articles discrediting Joe the Plumber, knocking him from his stump and back to a sump pump. He wasn't lying; he was asking a hypothetical question based on his "dream" of someday owning his own shop, growing the business, hiring employees (i.e. creating jobs), and grossing over $250,000 without being taxed more for taking the entrepreneurial risk. The true news story was not about this hypothetical question--it was that Obama used the words spread the wealth, a tenet of socialism that no viable candidate has ever come right out and said. Shutting up "Joe" fits Obama's pattern of shifting from the implications of his words to an indictment of the source that dared question them. [As John McCain pointed out the day after I wrote this, but the "Joe" effect continues to play out positively. A week later, Joe still has traction. Read end of this article.]

UPDATE two weeks later: What Joe the Plumber went through became much worse than I predicted that first night we heard his name. The opposition political machine, with the help of hundreds of media outlets, set out to destroy him, violating laws in ways reminiscent of the KGB in Russia, but they messed with the wrong plumber. It only strengthened Joe's resolve to go from the sump pump and out on the stump. The whole experience helped millions of observers imagine not only the dangers of "spread the wealth" but the kind of oppression we can expect in the "age of Obama" for those who don't drink his Kool-aid.

Here is another point to keep in mind: as we all know, income taxes are a form of taking money not "giving money." The income tax was not ratified until 1913. "The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945." The government now collects two trillion each year. Here is the current progressive tax table that John McCain advocates leaving alone.

Obama continually repeats that McCain is "giving more to the rich." Not true. He's simply suggesting we leave the rates alone because it's a bad time to take more away from the very businesses and investors we're counting on to boost our GDP and create the new jobs of the alternative energy industry. This transition will require capital. Have we already given up on that concept?

By the way, don't believe Obama's statistics about most small business not being affected by his tax hike. He is including millions of spare-time, second-income, home-based businesses such as Avon ladies, Amway friends, or Antique hobbyists who rent a stall at a show. I owned a licensed small business back in my videographer days. Nothing wrong with those endeavors, but they double-dip the work force and rarely represent full-time jobs. Nearly 56% of all "small business" income comes from the 2% of "larger" small businesses that do get hit by Obama's plan (including farms, franchise owners, store fronts, and yes plumbing and heating shops--you know, the backbone of local employment and GDP).

Obama's spreading the wealth means taking even more money from people in the upper tax brackets and supposedly "giving it" to the working class (but remember, he isn't really "giving" us anything--just taking less away through taxes. The money we keep was already ours.). There is one constituency that he truly will be giving more money to: the millions already getting the EITC who pay no taxes at all yet get "entitlement" tax refunds. [Explained by Acorn in a newsletter at this link.] That's what he means by "Spread the wealth." It was not a slip of the tongue, not just a Robin Hood appeal to the middle class; it reflects Obama's first step toward a more government-dependent America in which millions of voters leave their hand out after turning in their ballot.
.

14 comments below